Why the Gospel Matters to Believers

I'm very confident in my salvation. I've confessed with my mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in my heart that God has raised Him from the dead. But when did I first get saved? I have no idea. I know when I first prayed a prayer and I know that I prayed a prayer many times after that. In fact, if the sinner's prayer was a credit card I would have maxed out by the time I was six. I've always known the Gospel and there's never really been a time in which I've rejected it (though I did go through a period of doubt in my younger days). And so, it has only been recently that I've truly fallen in love with the Gospel, not just because it saved me but because of what it means for me as a believer.

The imperatives (commands) of Scripture always derive from the indicatives (statements) of Scripture. For example, in Exodus 20, before God gives the infamous Ten Commandments, He first reminds that them that, "I am the LORD thy God who has brought thee out of the house of Egypt." Every command that God was about to give the Israelites hinged up this truth. I am the Lord and I've rescued you, God told them. Everything we do as believers is based on who God is and what He's done for us.

It's only recently that I've truly begun to appreciate what God has done for me. It is a beautiful concept that the Creator would become His creation and die for them. That our Judge would be our Advocate. That God would be mindful of man and chose to claim them as His own.

The more I ponder all the ramifications of the Gospel's indicatives the more I realize the need for imperatives. Because of all that God has done for me I am willfully bound to take action. His patience and forgiveness toward me ought to motivate me to patiently forgive others. His desire to see souls have fellowship with Himself ought to give me the same desire. His love for me ought to cause me to love Him and all those He loves. His hatred for my sin ought to cause me to hate it as well.

The more I begin to think about who God is and what He's done for me, the more I realize that there is no room for laziness in my life. The Gospel ought to motivate believers to take action. That's why it's so important that the Gospel never becomes old or familiar to us. We must be in continual awe of God's beautiful masterplan. A failure to fully appreciate the indicatives of God's Word will turn the imperatives into legalism and vain religious motions. However, the more we fall in love with the indicatives the more joyous the imperatives will become.

Mission: Read Like Crazy

The great preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, said, “The man who never reads will never be read; he who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men’s brains proves he has no brains of his own.”

Lately, God has been impressing upon the need to gain wisdom from men who already possess it. This has motivated me to start asking more and better questions of different people I admire. It has also motivated me to start reading more non-fiction books by the great contemporary theologians.

I know from experience that these commitments usually fizzle away without two secret ingredients: discipline and accountability. You all can help me with both. I've decided to make a goal of reading ten books by the end of next year.

Why ten? I don't know. It just seemed like a good round number. Likewise, I think it is both a doable goal and a goal that will take a bit of effort. Upon finishing each book I'll be posting a brief review here.



This is my list thus far:

Just Do Something By Kevin DeYoung

Religion Saves and 9 Other Misconceptions By Mark Driscoll

Desiring God by John Piper

Humility: True Greatness by CJ Mahaney

Knowing God by JI Packer

God is the Gospel by John Piper

Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World - Various contributors

How Should We Then Live by Francis Schaeffer

What do you think? Good list? Bad list? What books have been meaningful to you? What books would you recommend?

Thankfulness For A God Who Doesn't Slumber

My family's Thanksgiving has been a little different this year. My 90 year old great-grandmother is the hospital, resulting the cancelation of most of our usual traditions. However, this whole situation has caused me to reflect on all the things that God did for me before I was even born.

As the apostle Paul reminding the Corinthians, I have nothing that I have not received. All that I have is gift from God, either directly or indirectly through the workings of other people. I've become very thankful for those who have gone on before me. I would like to take this time to give thanks for all that God did before I was even born that is now helping me grow in Him.

-First of all, I'm thankful that God had a plan. A brilliant, incredible plan. This plan had many phases which were laid out through the course of human history. The master stroke of this amazing plan was the death and resurrection of my Lord and Savior. Becasue of this incredible plan I who was once an enemy of God can call Him Daddy. What could be more amazing?

-I'm also thankful that God has preserved His Word. The Lord wants to communicate with the children of dust and has ensured that His Word would survive. However, the Scriptures have not always been as accessible as they are now. Even in some parts of the world today, the Bible is not readily accessible. I'm so thankful that I can have unhindered access to the Words of my Lord.

-I'm also very grateful that in every generation God has risen up teachers and proclaimers of His Word. I'm still benefitting from the teachings of by-gone admonishers. One of my heroes is the great revivalist, Jonathan Edwards. The man was an absolute genius. However, it's also very easy for me to relate to him. Most people read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and picture some Hell-raising, fire-and-brimstone maniac. But Edwards was anything but. He was a basically just a quiet, mild-mannered, skinny bookworm (I've been described in similar terms before) who was used of God to transform America as we know.

I've also been greatly impacted by more recent teachers, namely Doug Phillips, John Piper, Voddie Baucham and Tim G. Echols. Before I was even born, God had been working in these people’s lives and gave them a vision for ministry. I am now the academic product of God's working in those men's lives.

-Lastly, I'd just like to express thankfulness for what God has done with my family. I praise God that a logger in northern Minnesota got on his knees and accepted Jesus as his Savior. He then proceeded to teach his children, who taught their children, who taught their children who taught me. I am the product of five generations of faithful men and women who passed on biblical Truth to their children.

Likewise, I'm thankful for what God did in my parents’ lives. I'm thankful that they are both saved. I'm thankful that they both love the Lord. I'm grateful that God put them together. That they were both committed to disciplining their children. That they've taken the time to teach me and train me.

There are so many other events and people I could think God for. He has been so very good to me. I know I can't even begin to think Him enough. His grace is so amazing.

Lawlessness Is The New Legalism

Many churches pride themselves in speaking out against the enslaving evils of legalism. Pastors are always reminding their congregation to not get distracted by rules and regulations but to just concentrate on Jesus. Well, that's great. Or is it? Legalism has become such a negative buzz word that we no longer really know what it means. I'm a guy who likes to have words nicely defined. So, before we continue our little discussion on legalism, let's give it a definition.

In my understanding, legalism is an overemphasis on law rather than on God which usually results in the creation of additional rules. Legalists typically become judgmental of those who violate these laws. In short, legalism is idolatry. It's putting man-made laws above God Himself.


So, than what's with my peculiar title? If legalism is the overemphasis of law how can lawlessness be the new legalism? Didn't I just contradict myself? Just a few months ago I would have answered yes to that very question. However, then I got to thinking about the way that we often label people as legalists.

We take people who don't listen to rock or families that don't watch R-rated movies or girls who only wear dresses and then label them legalists. But what are we focusing on? The outward appearance. Laws. Rules.

There are many people in churches today who have strict rules about not having strict rules and then when people violate their no-rule rules they judge them for being judgmental.

I've seen families who homeschool their kids, don't listen to anything with a beat, hardly every watches movies, only read certain kinds of books, would never hear of dancing, dress in a very conservative way and attend a Fundamentalist, family-integrated church. But no one could ever justly call them legalists. They aren't focusing on rules. They're focusing on Jesus and this has caused them to live their lives in a certain way. They don't judge others who don't have their same standards, but focus on living their lives in a way that would please God.

On the flip side, I've seen believers who walk around like they're at a pop culture festival and live very legalistic lives. They may not think they have rules about dress or media, but they actually do. Their rules just have the extra convenience of commanding them to act 'lawlessly'. When people use the argument that the Bible never says "thou shalt not " what are they focusing on? The law. They aren't looking at the heart behind the law. Just the law and the law doesn't mention the particulars. They are very dedicated to their anti-rule rules and will judge and label anyone of violates them.

But before I start judging the lawless legalists, I must remind myself that we're all legalists at heart. We all have this natural, God-given draw toward order and it's much easier for that order to be controlled by rules rather than love.

We must all guard ourselves against the dangerous snares of legalism. At the end of day, if you're driving down a precarious road it doesn't really matter if you fall into the ditch to your left or the ditch to your right.

Election in Perspective

My overall emotion concerning Tuesday's mid-term elections is enthusiasm. Granted, things didn't go just as I would have wanted them. I'm disappointed that Brenna Findley will not be our next attorney general and that we have to put up with Congressman Boswell for another two years.

However, by and large, I'm pleased with the election's outcome. Personally knowing some of the candidates has added a whole new dimension to this year's election. I'm very excited that young Josh Cockroft won his state house race in Oklahoma.

I'm also very glad that Kim Pearson won her race. I remember running into Mrs. Pearson shortly after she had announced her candidacy. Though she did express a great deal of enthusiasm, she also seemed reluctant to show too much optimism. I remember her commenting that at least she would make her opponent spend some of that Union money. Now she's going to the Iowa House!

And I couldn't be more thrilled for Kent Sorenson. His opponent played dirty and took some really low shots. But he came out the victor. I honestly can't help but think that he's invincible now. There's really no mud left to sling at him. They're already unleashed every piece of ammunition they had and it still couldn't bring him down.

I believe that this election, particularly the race of Iowa governor, illustrates a very interesting point. The day after the election I was riding around with one of my co-workers. Now, you have to understand that my co-worker is an unsaved, die-hard Democrat that practically worships the ground President Obama steps on (that really isn't much of an exaggeration.) However, when it was announced over the radio that Terry Branstad had soundly beaten Governor Chet Culver, he pumped his fist and said, "Good. That's what he gets."

Upon further questioning, I discovered that my co-worker, like a lot of people, was mad at Culver. Very mad. In fact, I can't help but wonder if the Republicans could have won that race even if they had nominated Joe Blow from Anywhere City.

However, that wasn't what I found so interesting. What I found interesting was that my co-worker wasn't mad at Governor Culver because of his decisions, but because of his indecision. He felt like his governor never took a stand or was wiling to make the really hard calls. To me, that was just a great remember of the need for leaders to take a stand and be decisive. No decision at all is almost worse than a bad one. I believe that the success of this new movement which was established this year will depend on their ability to not fall into the trap of limp-wristed indecision.

The issue on the Iowa ballot which probably carried the most long term weight was the judicial retention vote. I was very pleased to see that vote go in our favor. Iowa sent a very strong message that they will not stand for judicial tyranny or the obstruction of marriage. We the people did our job of keeping wickedness at bay. We should be excited about the way the vote turned out.

However, it is also important to remember that this is not the answer. Getting righteous people into office and keeping our laws pure of wickedness is very, very important. But at the same time we mustn't put too much stock in politics. Politicians, even the best among them, will fail. The real answer is a change of heart in our people. Real change will come only after we've seen a spiritual awakening in this land. While I'm very glad to see that the political sphere may be turning back in our favor (at least for the time being), I believe it is important that the ambassadors of Christ keep our eye on the ball and not become enchanted by the whimsical movements of this age.

Three Things I Hate About The Calvinist-Arminian Debate

Before I tell you the three things I hate about the Calvinist-Arminian debate, I first need to clarify some things. This is an important issue and I'm not meaning to take away from that fact. However, I think that the way in which we Christians have gone about discussing this issue has become rather unhelpful. If we better the means in which we address this issue it'll better the outcome of any debate.

For the purpose of making a point I'm not going to give a long, drawn out description of my opinion of the Calvinism-Arminianism issue. However, if you are interested in a brief summary of my beliefs, I'd encourage you to check out this sermon by Mark Driscoll. As I've stated before, I don't agree with all Mark Driscoll's stuff, however, he does a nice job of summarizing his beliefs on this issue, which I happen to be in full agreement with.

#1. The names.
In the early Church, Christians use to say that they were of Paul or of Apollos. Now we say that we're of John Calvin or of Jacob Arminius. We haven't made much forward progress, have we? Not only that, but the names are kind of misnomers. Neither Calvin nor Arminius were in full agreement with the schools of thought that would later bare their names. John Calvin never advocated Limited Atonement and Arminius, while he did express some doubts, never denied the doctrine of Eternal Security in any of speeches or writings.


The fact is, we can't put too much stock in any human being, even great Christian leaders. Calvin and Arminius were both great men who loved Jesus. However, they were also both sinners. As created creatures, we naturally feel the need for a hero. Since we can't physically see God we tend to idolize someone we can see. While they're is nothing wrong with having people we like and admire, we need to remember that all are sinners. We can't every fully trust any sinners, even great theologically minded sinners.

#2. The points.
In 1610, the Arminians got together for an event called the Remonstrance, or Protest. During this event they came up with five doctrines which directly defied Calvinism, which had been a Protestant staple since the Reformation. In response, the Calvinists held a synod at Dort (pictured) and came up with the Five Points of Calvinism, all of which were handpicked to discredit the Five Points of Arminianism.

This is really, really bad way to do theology. We don't create doctrine in response to someone else's doctrines. We get our doctrine from the Bible. The result of the current five-point system is that instead of discussing Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, we end up arguing over Irresistible Grace, Unconditional Election and the Perseverance of the Saints. The debate quickly becomes academic rather than biblical.

Personally, I always find it really frustrating when I try talking to someone about this issue and they refuse to address the Scriptures. Everyone has a cute illustration or catchy little quotable to prove the infallibility of their point. Meanwhile, the Bible stays on the shelf.

#3. The divisions.
There are certain things that should divide us. If someone tells you that Jesus wasn't God or that the earth was created by aliens, run from them like Forest Gump. However, I don't believe this should be a dividing issue. And yet it is.

It always amazes to see how willing credobaptists, paedobaptism, charismatics, cessationists, Complementarians and Egalitarians are to get together and sing Kum Ba Yah providing that they agree on the Calvinist-Arminian issue. However, if they agree on nearly everything else but can't agree on predestination, they suddenly become die hard separationists.

Honestly, I can't help but wonder if it has become more of a pride issue. Because if you examine this issue in light of many of the other truths, it really isn't that big a deal. It's important, but not quite as important as we make it out to be. However, this topic has become the defining issue within Christian circles. I once heard some one say that there are only three kinds of Christians. Calvinists, Arminians and Catholics. This debate has been so heated for so long that no one is willing to back down.

I think it is vital to remember that this is an in house debate. At the end of the day, we're on the same team. Granted, the Body of Christ will always have its little family quarrels. That's nothing new. Some times these disagreement will even create a need for us to separate, just as Paul and Barabbas did. However, that doesn't mean the Church of Jesus needs to be consumed in hate and in-striving. Rather, let us remember that we are one Body with one Goal.

Loving the Unpopular Side of God

Lately, I've been conducting a bit of a social experiment. On this site and elsewhere I've been asking people what their favorite attribute of God is. I've yet to have anyone tell me that they just love God's justice and holy anger. But this came as no surprise.

It seems that we no longer like talking about the side of God that burnt whole civilizations to a crisp or killed even His children on the spot for their sin.

Since we don't want to come across as fire-and-brimstone extremists, we prefer to talk about love, mercy, grace and all those non-offensive attributes of God. However, there are many dangerous repercussions of this. I'll list two of them.

#1: It is an inaccurate portrayal of God. God is love. No one is denying that. Everything He does is saturated in pure, undefiled love. But God is also just. Therefore, everything that He does is also immersed in justice.

One of the most common forms of idolatry today is the worship of our favorite part of God. Look at one Mark Driscoll says on the subject,

Jesus is not a nice old man in a button-up cardigan sweater and loafers singing happy songs while loading everyone onto a trolley headed to the Neighborhood of Make-Believe to meet King Friday like some Mr. Rogers clone. That god is the neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that wants to bless everyone, does not care what you call him/her/it/they, never gets angry, and would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell. This mythical Sky Fairy is increasingly mistaken for Jesus, however, by many young pastors and Christians I have met who don’t want the gospel to be the offensive and foolish stumbling block that it is. So they remake Jesus in to a feathered-hair fairy in lavender tights and take the sword of Revelation out of his hand, replacing it with a daisy.

When Moses asked God to identify Himself, the Lord said that He was Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh. I am that I am or I will be who I will be. God is who He is and it's not for us to start picking and choosing our favorite parts of Him. We can't hold to the God who feeds the five thousand and not to the God who destroyed the Canaanites and is coming back with a sword in His hand.

This is when people start accusing me of worshiping a mean, selfish God who just wants to strike everyone will lightning. Not so. I worship a God of both love and justice. I believe that to be the God of the Bible. Every just thing God does is sprinkled with love and every loving thing He does is sprinkled with justice. This is why Jesus had to die. Because sin has to be punished.

I love what John Piper has to say,

We are creatures, and our Creator is not bound or obligated to give us anything - not life or health or anything. He gives, He takes, and He does us no injustice...And besides being creatures with no claim on our Creator, we are sinners...All we deserve from Him is judgment. Therefore, every breath we take, every time our heart beats, every day the sun rises, every moment we see with our eyes or hear with our ears or speak with our mouths or walk with our legs is, for now, a free and undeserved gift to sinners who deserve only judgment.

God doesn't owe us anything but wrath. The fact that you and I are still breathing right now is a testament to our Father's mercy. For some reason we think God owes us life and comfort and a free choice. But He doesn't. If He gave us what He owes us we'd all be in Hell right now.

For those who would argue that I'm still making God out to be a tyrant, let me first say that God has every right to be a tyrant. Shall the clay say to the Potter why have You made this way? God is our Creator and therefore our Owner. A painter has the right to poke holes in His own masterpiece.

But second, we must remember how we define right and wrong. We don't define who God is based on our own understandings of morality. We define morality based on who God is.

#2: It cheapens the rest of God's attributes. When we look at what God does and we think God is unloving, what are we saying? We're saying that God owes us love. But, if He owes us love, grace and mercy than those attributes are meaningless. When we start with love, God's justice looks cruel. But when we start with justice, God's love looks so much more amazing.

Likewise, when we begin to understand how worthless we are in the presence of an Almighty God, it should make us stand in awe of God's deep love. When we begin to see ourselves as sinful enemies of God who justly deserve death and Hell, the fact that God has offered us fellowship with Him is all the more incredible.




That is the desire for my own life. That I learn to love the unpopular side of God. The side that everyone else shoves under the rug. I want to claim that awesome, almighty Judge as my Daddy. Lightning bolts and all.